It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

page: 12
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Here's an interesting and depressing visual aid - that I'm not sure how to size

This scientist just changed how we think about climate change with one GIF



edit on 5/11/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Climate change is ongoing, it never stops. Now what you going to do about it? I hope you don't feel that babbling about it is going to produce awareness. I can babble at someone about not stepping out into traffic and provide them with awareness concerning approaching vehicles, but it won't stop the oncoming truck. That's life and not you or anyone else has the technological capacity to stop this oncoming truck. It's not man made, so until you can get the attention of your local deity or whatever cosmic muffin to which you ascribe your faith, nothing is going to change, except the climate ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ah finally...an admission that 2016 is not a normal temperature year and should not be construed as proof of further global warming.

its just weather!

Likewise, the expected la nina will also be weather.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Ah finally...an admission that 2016 is not a normal temperature year and should not be construed as proof of further global warming.

Ah, another strawman argument. Who has said that 2016 is a normal temperature year?
1998 was not a normal temperature year either and 2015-2016 has been warmer than that. In any case, "normal" seems to be getting warmer.

edit on 5/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Ah finally...an admission that 2016 is not a normal temperature year and should not be construed as proof of further global warming.

Ah, another strawman argument. Who has said that 2016 is a normal temperature year?
1998 was not a normal temperature year either and 2015-2016 has been warmer than that. In any case, "normal" seems to be getting warmer.

Phage sorry to poke you, but I know you are big on the manmade climate change hypothesis.

What do you think is the realistic consequence for mankind with a 1-1.5°C overall increase over a few decades?

Will it be the drastic consequences so many like to purport or is it just some doom porn that will get some people new beachside property?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

What do you think is the realistic consequence for mankind with a 1-1.5°C overall increase over a few decades?
Over a few decades? That translates to a change of 3 - 4.5º in the next hundred years. Quite beyond most projections but yes, that would likely result in what could be called drastic changes in climates. You probably would not want to live on that beachside.


edit on 5/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

replace decades for centuries, my apologies on the word. I meant 1-1.5°C over a couple centuries, which I believe is the estimated current rate (I'm probably wrong there too).



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




I meant 1-1.5°C over a couple centuries, which I believe is the estimated current rate (I'm probably wrong there too).

Yup. You're wrong. That's too low. If that's the rate of increase we get, we're doing a whole lot of stuff right. The goal for the Paris agreement is to limit warming to 2º (which includes the 0.8º we've already got, so 1.2º) at the end of the century.

edit on 5/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I did say a couple


And you didn't answer what I meant by that. What do you think the global impacts will be?

I don't disagree man is contributing to climate change, i just don't think it is as much or as devastating as it's made out to be.

Do you think on our current path global warming will have the dire effects it is claimed to have?

Yes I get it, one area crops will fail, but another area will become fertile likewise. It is a balance in this world we cannot contain or control, only understand and adapt to it.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
I think the greatest impact of climate changes will be in the displacement of large populations. Followed by disruptions of large ecological systems, which will entail unforeseeable consequences.

If the rate of change can be slowed it will provide time to mitigate and adapt to those impacts.


edit on 5/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Do you think the Chinese building of "ghost cities" is in preparation for it? About 60% of China alone is considered a coastal populace. I haven't even looked into the US statistics, but I assume it's the same if not more.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
Nah, I think the "ghost cities" were public works projects. Government spending.

It isn't just coastal populations which will be displaced.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well I know it won't only be coastal populations, but the majority of it will be. While I can see the modern view of the Chinese just wanting to say "hey look at our cool cities" I also think about the Chinese in general, their culture is 1000's of years old not by acting cool, but rather being smart. I dunno, it's just a thought I've had about the crazy cities they've built in the craziest areas. Like they know where the new fertile grounds will be, or maybe just building everywhere because they can knowing they have something there.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

now you are being arrogant. I am not making a strawman arguement. The OP started this thread by reporting that it was 40 degrees in India, there was wild fires in Canada ect.

The OP was making the argument that all of these events were the result of climate change.

I replied that it was all just weather and that weather should not be quoted as proof of climate change. Whenever a climate change denier quotes weather as proof that the climate is not changing, we are jumped on with arrogant claims that weather is not climate.


However, when a believer quotes the weather as proof of climate change, everyone jumps in to support those statements (as is exactly what happened in this thread.

I have been debating to get everyone to recognize that, what is good for the gander is also good for the goose. If weather cannot be used to prove that climate is not changing, then weather cannot be used to prove that it is!

when i finally get someone to admit that 2016 is a spike and an unusual year and overall, proof of nothing, you arrogantly come back with the statement that I am making a "strawman arguement".

Read the OP

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Want to get to the truth of any matter? Follow the money is always a good way.

Insurance industry says to adapt.




But for literally hundreds of years, the insurance industry has been the master of statistics. It goes back to the days when underwriters sat in Lloyd's Coffee House in London in the 1700s and calculated the odds that a cargo ship would sink before returning from the Far East. And they don't like to get it wrong.

"What we have is evidence that property-related insurance losses from extreme weather are increasing not only in Canada, but also internationally," Thistlethwaite says. "And this aligns with climate change research that suggests that the warmer the atmosphere is, the more extreme weather you're likely to get.”


The new term Insurance is taking up is derisking.


"There is no insurance company I know that's not an advocate for working to minimize greenhouse gases," says the ICCA's Feltmate.

But he says from a business point of view, the industry decided in the past two or three years that it must focus more on what he calls "de-risking" insured properties — spending to adapt to climate change as the effects worsen.

As the insurance industry learns more about how to adapt, those new strategies will be passed on to homeowners, who will be encouraged to do things like direct runoff away from their houses, install devices to prevent sewer backup, cover window wells, or make their homes more fireproof.


In other words, if a homeowner doesn’t pay for upgrades to safeguard your home, you will pay more for insurance.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

Insurance companies will support anything that allows them to charge more money for increased "risks". This is just another way that the public is being ripped off.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is estimated that the Fort Mac fire in Alberta will cost insurance companies in the neighbourhood of $9B.

You think there's only scamming? The DO have to make money to pay all their employees, CEOs and build big huge high-rises like Trump does. Gotta look good for Joe Public.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Naa, at least he is not making claims such as "the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the hundreds to thousands of years" as you have made in the past. Dr. Latour is explaining it within the context of electrical and chemical engineering.

heh... They seem to have differences in opinions. In case you didn't know scientists do not agree on everything... That does not disprove anything at all...

I'm just going to stop your post right here.

If Dr. Latour seriously believes what he writes about climate change, he is either a fool or delusional. I suspect he is paid to write this crap.

Sorry. That's all there is to it. Reminder that he wrote this nonsense:

There is no greenhouse effect. Like two years ago, you again offer the fact down-welling IR measured by pyrometer (IR thermometer) from cold CO2 in sky at 300 w/m2 as proof heat transfers at that rate from cold CO2 to warmer surface, is absorbed by surface, heating it and causing it to radiate more intensely. It proves no such thing. I explained you are confusing S-B irradiance or intensity of radiating matter with radiating heat transfer between two radiating matter bodies, driven by an intensity difference. Just because they share the same units, w/m2, does not mean they are the same phenomena. So your argument doesn’t hold water, or GHGT. Since there is no greenhouse in the sky, how can there be a greenhouse effect?


Here, read up on this document from 1970, about one of the first satellites launched with the capability to look at the Earth through infrared. It confirms the greenhouse gas effect exists.

He is wrong decades before he made his dumb claim.

If you want anyone to take you seriously on this site any further in the future, no matter how long you've posted here, you better backpedal in this ASAP. This 'expert' of yours has no #ing idea what he is talking about.

The fact people star posts like this is depressing. None of your posts deserve a response until you address this, as it is utterly useless to engage with you if you really and truly believe as he does.

I'll ask this only once:
Do you repudiate Dr. Latour's claims, in light of him claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?
edit on 17Fri, 13 May 2016 17:39:03 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

Ah finally...an admission that 2016 is not a normal temperature year and should not be construed as proof of further global warming.

its just weather!

Likewise, the expected la nina will also be weather.

Tired of Control Freaks


LOL You do realize that there is actual scientific global temperature data compiled from all over the world from hundreds, if not thousands of unbiased sources. Global temperature data is not a conspiracy. But it may be hard to convince you since you seem to believe that every scientist and scientific organization and University and college in the world is in on some kind of weird conspiracy. They're not, you know. That would be impossible.
edit on 13-5-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Here's an interesting and depressing visual aid - that I'm not sure how to size

This scientist just changed how we think about climate change with one GIF




that last line coming out is sooooooo ominous




top topics



 
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join